HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RainDog » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next »

RainDog

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 28,784

Journal Archives

Study: 1 in 3 American Youth Are Arrested By Age 23

By age 23, at least a quarter of all youth in the U.S. — and perhaps as many as 41% — are arrested at least once for something more serious than a traffic violation, according to a new study of American teens.

Researchers have not completed an analysis of the data by race, but prior studies suggest that minorities are arrested more frequently than whites. Previous research finds, for example, that black youth are arrested at double the rate of white youth for drug crimes, even though a larger proportion of white youth actually use and sell drugs.

Although it may seem shocking that at least one-third of U.S. youth has an arrest record, those who study juvenile crime don’t find the figure to be out of line. Since the 1970s, America has become much tougher on crime, lengthening sentences, increasing the police force and quintupling the number of people incarcerated. During that time, the number of Americans in prison has gone from half a million to 2.3 million, with approximately 93,000 incarcerated youth. Given the changes in the criminal justice system, some increase in youth arrests was to be expected.

Although the literature is mixed, several previous studies indicate that kids who are incarcerated do significantly worse later on, compared with those who are given alternative sentences that allow them to remain in their communities. One study, for example, compared children who committed the same crimes but wound up with harsh or lenient sentences: those who were sentenced to juvenile detention were three times more likely to be re-incarcerated as adults, compared with those whose judges gave them lighter, alternative sentences


http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/19/study-1-in-3-american-youth-are-arrested-by-age-23/#ixzz1h5ABwEvo

Raw Story's Headline Puts the Blame on Harsher Drug Laws

Tougher drug laws mean nearly 1/3 arrested by age 23
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/19/tougher-drug-laws-mean-nearly-13-arrested-by-age-23/

A study analyzing data from the federal government’s National Longitudinal Survey of Youth found that 30.2 percent of 23-year-olds reported being arrested for something more serious that a traffic violation.

It’s the first time since the 1960s that researchers have tried to determine how often young people are arrested. A similar study in 1965 found that only 22 percent reported being arrested by age 23.

“I was astonished 44 years ago,” Carnegie Mellon University professor Alfred Blumstein told USA Today. “There’s a lot more arresting going on now.”

Researchers believe that a toughening of drug laws and the increased size of police forces contribute to the the increase. Five times more Americans are incarcerated now than in the 1960s.


Steve Cohen (D-TN) is a member of the House who has signed on with Barney Frank, Ron Paul, Democratic Reps. John Conyers (MI), Jared Polis (CO) and Barbara Lee (CA) to reschedule/decriminalize cannabis via HR 2306. In addition, the 40th anniversary of the WoD led to a tremendous outcry from leaders around the world to end the failed war on drugs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117052

Cohen noted:

"Marijuana use has not skyrocketed in the last year, but arrests are vamped up and they use arrest as a basis to get people, particularly people of color where it’s 7 times more likely you’ll be arrested if you’re African American and 4 times more likely you’ll be arrested if you’re Latino and more likely if you’re African American or Latino that you’ll spend a night in jail than if you’re Caucasian,”


http://www.democraticunderground.com/117024

President Obama's puzzling silence on marijuana policy

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017033938_peirce18.html

"Dance with the One that Brought You" is the title of a well-known song. But the Urban Dictionary offers a deeper meaning: "The principle that someone should pay proper fealty to those who have gone out of their way to look after them."

But what about President Obama? In 2004 he endorsed marijuana decriminalization. He was candid about his early pot use and in 2006 told a group of magazine editors: "When I was a kid, I inhaled, frequently." By his run for president in 2008, he was slipping away from decriminalization but at least talked of a "public health" approach, emphasizing drug treatment instead of prison, giving drug-reform advocates hope for a new day in national policy.

But Obama as president has been a clear disappointment to reform forces. In White House-initiated electronic town halls, respondents — heavily weighted to original Obama supporters — have repeatedly put marijuana at the top of their issue lists. But the White House has either laughed off or provided dismissive retorts.

Obama's Drug Policy Office claims the drug war is over, replaced by a focus on shrinking demand, "innovative, compassionate and evidence-based drug policies." But Obama has not once singled out marijuana — a substance arguably far less harmful to the human body than alcohol — for special consideration. Nor has he spoken to the harm to youth caused by 800,000 yearly arrests. Or moved to stem the billions of dollars a year spent on marijuana-related arrests.


The editorial writer notes that Obama can reignite the youth vote by making a statement that marijuana policy needs to be revisited - not even actually do anything before an election - while Ethan Nadelmann, of the Drug Policy Alliance, wonders if the Obama administration has been co-opted by holdover appointees (he's talking about you, Michele Leonhart.)

The Truth About Medical Marijuana



Series: "Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley" (2008)

How the DEA, the Attn General or Congress Could Reschedule Cannabis

Drug Schedules are part of the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970, that defines federal drug policy. There are five schedules, or classifications for drugs, to determine federal policy on those substances. Cannabis is currently listed as a Schedule I substance.

Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA.

Other schedules and substances designated for various schedules are available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

The DEA and the FDA determine the scheduling of various substances, although Congress scheduled a substance via legislation in Feb. 2000. The Attorney General of the United States may also initiate a drug rescheduling hearing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/811b.html

Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute provides this information about the way in which a rescheduling may be put in motion, in this case, by the Attorney General:

...Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General

(1) on his own motion,
(2) at the request of the Secretary, or
(3) on the petition of any interested party.

The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) of this section to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance.

...if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled , the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.

Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules

In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.


In 1992, DEA administrator Robert Bonner created 5 criteria for determining whether a substance has medicinal value.

The DEA claims that cannabis has no accepted medical use because it does not meet all of these criteria:

* The drug's chemistry is known and reproducible;
* There are adequate safety studies;
* There are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
* The drug is accepted by qualified experts; and
* The scientific evidence is widely available.


(Information on Drug Schedules and Information on attempts to reschedule cannabis via the Wiki link, above.)

On October 18, 1985, the DEA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to transfer "Synthetic Dronabinol in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules" — a pill form of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive component of cannabis, sold under the brand name Marinol — from Schedule I to Schedule II (DEA 50 FR 42186-87). The government issued its final rule rescheduling the drug on July 13, 1986 (DEA 51 FR 17476-78). The disparate treatment of cannabis and the expensive, patentable Marinol prompted reformers to question the DEA's consistency.

In the summer of 1986, the DEA administrator initiated public hearings on cannabis rescheduling. The hearings lasted two years, involving many witnesses and thousands of pages of documentation. On September 6, 1988, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled that cannabis did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. He declared that cannabis in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. (T)he provisions of the (Controlled Substances) Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II".

Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young's determination. Lawn said he decided against re-scheduling cannabis based on testimony and comments from numerous medical doctors who had conducted detailed research and were widely considered experts in their respective fields. Later Administrators agreed. "Those who insist that marijuana has medical uses would serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate research," former DEA Administrator Robert Bonner opined in 1992.


So, what has medical research into the use of cannabis revealed since 1992? Because of the Federal Scheduling, much of the legitimate research has gone on outside of the United States.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana
(This article includes links to information about cannabinoid research for 19 different health issues, with links to the studies relating to the medical condition.)

Recent medical research on cannabis, via NORML:

...There are now more than 17,000 published papers in the scientific literature analyzing marijuana and its constituents...Whereas researchers in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s primarily assessed cannabis' ability to temporarily alleviate various disease symptoms — such as the nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy — scientists today are exploring the potential role of cannabinoids to modify disease.

Of particular interest, scientists are investigating cannabinoids' capacity to moderate autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as their role in the treatment of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's disease.)

Investigators are also studying the anti-cancer activities of cannabis, as a growing body of preclinical and clinical data concludes that cannabinoids can reduce the spread of specific cancer cells via apoptosis (programmed cell death) and by the inhibition of angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels). Arguably, these latter trends represent far broader and more significant applications for cannabinoid therapeutics than researchers could have imagined some thirty or even twenty years ago.



Beginning January 2012, people in Switzerland may legally grow 4 cannabis plants at home

if they want to grow more than 4, they have to receive permission and register with their canton.

edited to note: this is for 4 French-speaking cantons, cheri.

http://www.tdg.ch/actu/suisse/cantons-particuliers-pourront-cultiver-cannabis-2011-11-16
(the link is in French - 420 has the article available via google translate in the link below - not exactly smooth but it does get the general idea across)

http://the420times.com/2011/11/switzerland-legalizes-growing-cannabis-at-home/

Earlier this month, Copenhagen put together a proposal to legalize cannabis in that city. The proposal has to be approved by the Danish Parliament, which will meet on this issue early in 2012.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/8899243/Copenhagen-votes-to-legalise-marijuana.html

The Basques are moving to legalize cannabis in their region.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117059

"It's better to regulate than to ban," said Jesus Maria Fernandez, second in command at the region's health authority. Regulating "the growing, sale, and consumption of cannabis" is a better approach to pot smoking, he said, calling it "a practice that is already consolidated."

More and more cities, regions and nations are pushing back against zero tolerance that is the failed legacy of Ronald Reagan. Since Reagan's actions, cannabis has become an even bigger worldwide industry that generates ever greater profits that are not taxed for use by the states in which they are made.

The Government's Marijuana Problem

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2011/12/12/the-government-marijuana-problem/IkzFO6LBsHa6ss8BoWnsJO/story.html

EVEN IF I wanted to get marijuana, I wouldn’t know where to start looking. That predicament should not be true for the terminally ill. But the legal limbo regarding medical marijuana has left many state governments deciding between promoting patient care and exposing people to prosecution. Finally, the states are pushing back.

Decisions about marijuana’s medical benefits are made by the Justice Department’s Drug Enforcement Agency; decisions about whether to prosecute those who violate federal law against marijuana use reside with local US attorneys’ offices; decisions about whether there can be more medical studies are made by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, whose name gives you a sense of its priorities.

...even in the states that allow medical marijuana, federal authorities keep bringing cases against medical marijuana distributors, their clients, and the landlords that lease to them. Some may deserve it and just be fronts for recreational use. But because federal and state laws overlap, the only assurance the Justice Department can give to state supporters of medical marijuana is a promise that prosecutions against caregivers or patients are a low priority. That sentiment was reiterated by Attorney General Eric Holder just last week.

Assurances are not legally binding. This leaves governors in a terrible quandary about how, and whether, to proceed with laws allowing the distribution of marijuana for medical use. In Rhode Island, before Governor Lincoln Chafee ever enforced a law allowing distribution by “compassion centers,’’ he received a letter from the state’s US attorney to “ensure that there is no confusion.’’ With a passing reference to Holder’s priorities, the letter warns that Justice will vigorously enforce laws against the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana “even if such activities are permitted under state law.’’


As the writer of this editorial notes, the federal government lags behind the science, the desire of the American population and compassion.

It's time for the DEA to reschedule cannabis, as four governors have recently requested, and as five democrats and one Republican have attempted to do via HR 2306 - a bill whose progress is stalled by one Republican representative from Texas.

A recent Senate subcommittee report noted that the war on drugs is a failure; the primary beneficiaries of current policies and actions are military contractors and drug lords.

It's time for marijuana to be handled by the FDA and medical professsionals, not the D.E.A or the N.I.D.A.

Cigarette and Alcohol Use Down Among Teens. Cannabis Use Up

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) survey includes teens in 8th, 10th, & 12th grades. Other drugs showing some evidence of decline in use this year include cocaine, crack cocaine and inhalants. Full survey here: http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/

The 17 states with the most usage among teens

1. New Mexico (29%)
2. Mass (27.1)
3. Rhode Island (26.3%)
4. Delaware (25.8%)
5. New Hampshire (25.6%)
6. Colorado (24.8%)
7. Vermont (24.6%)
8. Arizona (23.7%)
9. Montana (23. 1%)
10. Alaska (22.7%)
11. Hawaii (22.1%)
12. Maryland (21.9%)
13. Conn. (21.8%)
14. Florida (21.4)
15. Illinois (20.1)
16. Indiana (20.9%)
17. New York (20.9%)

Interesting that California, Oregon and Washington State aren't among those reporting the greatest usage among teens yet these are the states with some of the most liberal cannabis laws for the last 15 years.

Medical marijuana has been the law in California since 1996. A 2007 study from Texas A&M found “Our results indicate that the introduction of medical cannabis laws was not associated with an increase in cannabis use among either arrestees or emergency department patients in cities and metropolitan areas located in four states in the USA (California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington),” researchers reported in the International Journal of Drug Policy. “Consistent with other studies of the liberalization of cannabis laws, medical cannabis laws do not appear to increase use of the drug.

Abstract here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17689362

It might be more realistic to note that teenagers have gotten the message that cannabis is safer than alcohol or cigarettes. If cannabis were regulated like alcohol and tobacco, access for teens would be more difficult.

Paul Armentano weighed in on this issue earlier in the year.

In truth, marijuana use rates as a percentage of the overall population vary only slightly among states, despite states having remarkably varying degrees of marijuana enforcement and punishments. Several states with the most lenient laws regarding marijuana possession — such as Nebraska (possession of up to one ounce is a civil citation) and Mississippi (possession of up to 30 grams is a summons) — report having some of the lowest rates of marijuana use, while several states that maintain strict penalties for personal users report comparatively high levels of use.


quoted from this link: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/134069-drug-czar-blames-rising-teen-pot-use-on-medical-cannabis-laws-rather-than-on-the-administrations-own-failed-policies

The Marijuana Policy Project reported this from 2005: http://www.mpp.org/reports/teen-use.html

They look at not just current usage but overall lifetime usage among teens.

His Enemy Was Intransigence: how Peter McWilliams died

Peter McWilliams was a libertarian. Don't hold that against him. He wrote a book, Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do, in 1993 which discussed the uselessness of laws to deal with victimless crimes, such as prohibition of cannabis.

In 1996, Peter developed AIDS and lymphoma. Medical marijuana saved his life. Here is what he had to say about the situation in 2000, in an address to a libertarian convention (you can find a link to the full speech via the link below. Clinton was president when McWilliams was going through his first bout of chemo.)


Back to March 1996. I was being pumped full of chemotherapy, which causes nausea, and radiation, which causes nausea, and AIDS medications, which cause nausea, and none of the prescription antinausea medications were working. The nausea, however, ended instantly with medical marijuana. With one puff of marijuana, the nausea turned to hunger. Thank Mother Nature for that ( Mother Nature is one of Nature's Gods, from the Declaration of Independence ). Medical marijuana has been around for more than 5,000 years and it hasn't killed anyone.

It is astonishing how well it works.

And you have to understand how serious it is when you can't keep your medication down -- it's not just uncomfortable, if you can't keep that medication down, it's not going to save your life. And that is the important point. We're talking about life and death when we're talking about treating AIDS and cancer. Half the people not taking the AIDS combination therapy -- some 40 percent of all who try -- do so because of nausea. This is a shame, because the AIDS medications are working so well for those who can tolerate them. I am one of them. But 20 percent stop because of nausea. I wonder how many of those 20 percent, if they had access to legal inexpensive marijuana, would have that same problem. Every day people are denied cancer chemotherapy because the doctors stop treatment knowing that they will die of malnutrition if they go another day without eating. Nausea is an unsolved problem of medicine and marijuana is the finest antinausea medication known to science.

At the same time our leaders have lied about this consistently. Our leaders whom we trust, whom we look up to. From the Democratic president to the Drug Czar to the Republican leaders in Congress, in both the House and the Senate. They have lied to us about medical marijuana. They have lied to us about the harm of marijuana. There is no more benign medicinal substance known to human beings. And we have been lied to about this. And so this was my first epiphany, watching my normal run to the bathroom, with one puff of marijuana, turn into a meandering raid on the kitchen. And with that epiphany I said, "I am not going to rest until medical marijuana is available to every sick person who needs it in the United States."


And here I think it is important to note that the IMMEDIATE effect of cannabis on nausea is due to the way in which the cannabis is used. It is SMOKED. By smoking, the cannabis does not have to go through the liver via the stomach and make its way to the brain to turn off the nausea, a process that can take up to two hours. When cannabis is smoked, it goes from the lungs to the heart to the brain within half a minute. Actually, the time is more like 2-15 seconds.

Recently, the Drug Czar specifically noted that the federal govt. finds no medical use for "smoked marijuana." Well, that must be because the federal govt. doesn't want to find it because the evidence has been available for decades. The Obama administration is lying about smoked cannabis and is using that lie as a foundation for the continuation of prohibition. They are lying. Let's be clear. They are lying about science.

This is why I have come to the conclusion that prohibition is the creationism of social conservatism in the realm of medicine.

In the face of absolute proof regarding a scientific issue, prohibitionists are as idiotic as creationists - but are more harmful to society. It has been more than a decade since the federal govt has had to answer for their crimes against the American people regarding prohibition. It seems like we need a Scopes trial for the prohibitionists...a hearing on the science.

One of the people that the anti-science prohibitionists killed was Peter McWilliams. Here is how they killed him.

On June 14, Natalie Fisher went to Peter McWilliams' home, where she worked as housekeeper to the wheelchair-bound victim of AIDS and cancer. In the bathroom on the second floor, she found his life-less body. He had choked to death on his own vomit... (Peter) was diagnosed with AIDS and non-Hodgkins lymphoma in early 1996...In 1996, California voters enacted a law legalizing the use of marijuana by people, like Peter, who needed it for medical reasons...Like many people stricken with AIDS or cancer, he had great difficulty keeping down the drugs that controlled or mitigated those afflictions. He began to smoke marijuana to control the drug-induced nausea. It saved his life: by early 1998, both his cancer and his AIDS were under control.

After the Clinton administration announced it would ignore the state law and continue to prosecute marijuana users who needed the drug to stay alive, it remained very difficult for others who needed medical marijuana to get the drug. So Peter helped finance the efforts of Todd McCormick to cultivate marijuana for distribution to those who needed it for medical reasons....His articulate advocacy of legalizing medical marijuana brought him to the attention of federal authorities, who got wind of Todd McCormick's attempt to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes and of Peter's involvement with it. And it came to pass that in the early morning of December 17, 1997, federal agents invaded his home and business, and confiscated a wide array of his property ( including his computers, one of whose hard disks contained the book he was writing ). In July 1998 they arrested him on charges of conspiring to grow marijuana.

His mother and brother put up their homes as bond and he was released from jail to await his trial. One of the conditions of his bail was that he smoke no marijuana. Unwilling to risk the homes of his mother and brother, he obeyed the order. His viral load, which had fallen to undetectable levels, now soared to dangerous levels:

"Unable to keep down the life-saving prescription medications, by November 1998, four months after my arrest, my viral load soared to more than 256,000. In 1996 when my viral load was only 12,500, I had already developed an AIDS-related cancer .... Even so, the government would not yield. It continued to urine test me. If marijuana were found in my system, my mother and brother would lose their homes and I would be returned to prison" said Peter.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n948/a03.html

This is important to note: Because the federal govt, specifically the federal govt under the leadership of the Clinton administration, refused to honor the will of California voters regarding medical marijuana, Peter McWilliams' health deteriorated to the point that he became wheelchair bound.

Before, when he was able to use medical marijuana, his health improved.

After, when the federal govt brought the full force of their power down on someone who was acting legally, and, imo, morally, that person suffocated on his own vomit. The federal govt. had proof, in the person of Peter McWilliams, that smoked marijuana was saving his life and they ignored this - and killed him because of their refusal to acknowledge the proof before their own eyes.

Democrats have been WORSE for people who deal with illness and use medical marijuana for their conditions than Republicans at the federal level. Under the Clinton administration, the DEA engaged in more raids than his Republican predecessor. The same holds true with Obama. This history must change. Democrats must become the rational party regarding medical cannabis.

You have to wonder if they want to look tough - but, you know, kicking cancer patients when they're down is more like the act of a sociopath, not someone who cares about the well being of society.

Nevertheless, the helmet hair heads in D.C. and other political offices can't seem to shake the idea that an attack on marijuana is an attack on the 60s counter culture. Hey, guess what? The 60s are over. So is Nixon and his hatred for those Jews who were smoking pot. The social conservatives cannot even win on legislation to oppress women in Mississippi, fercryinoutloud. The 60s won - deal with it. Climb to the roof of your helmet-haired head, get into your mental helicopters and remove yourselves from your outdated positions.

Oh, and Todd McCormick, the person who was arrested for growing marijuana? He was also a cancer patient.

The War on Drugs in action.

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/





Open Culture

here:

http://www.openculture.com/freemoviesonline

Endorsements to Legalize Cannabis / Progress 2010-2011

These statements range from 2010, when Prop. 19 was on the ballot in CA to Dec. 2011.


Norm Stamper, Former FBI chief in Seattle, endorses marijuana legalization initiative (Nov. 2011)
http://today.seattletimes.com/2011/11/former-fbi-chief-in-seattle-endorses-marijuana-legalization-initiative/


The NAACP
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20084203-503544.html


Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced a bill (H.B. 2306) modeled on the 21st amendment to repeal prohibition, to end the federal govt's prohibition of cannabis. This was the first time such a bill has been entered in the house (June 2011.)

Democratic Reps. John Conyers (MI), Steve Cohen (TN), Jared Polis (CO) and Barbara Lee (CA) are co-sponsors of the bill.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/23/251897/paul-frank-introduce-bill-to-legalize-marijuana/


Stop the Violence, a high profile group of Canadian business, political, and educational, legal and law enforcement professionals, includes former B.C. Supreme Court justice Ross Lander and B.C.'s former chief coroner Vince Cain, launched a high-profile political campaign to "end the cannabis cash cow of organized crime."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/10/27/bc-stop-the-violence-marijuana-coalition.html


The following Commissioners from the Global Commission on Drug Policy:

» Asma Jahangir
- human rights activist, former UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and Summary Executions, Pakistan

» Carlos Fuentes
- writer and public intellectual, Mexico

» César Gaviria
- former President of Colômbia

» Ernesto Zedillo
- former President of México

» Fernando Henrique Cardoso
- former President of Brazil (chair)

» George Papandreou
- Prime Minister of Greece

» George Shultz
- former Secretary of State, United States (honorary chair)

» Javier Solana
- former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Spain

» John Whitehead
- banker and civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial, United States

» Kofi Annan
- former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ghana

» Louise Arbour
- former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, president of the International Crisis Group, Canada

» Maria Cattaui
- Member of the Board, Petroplus Holdings; former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, Switzerland

» Marion Caspers-Merk
- former State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health, Germany

» Mario Vargas Llosa
- writer and public intellectual, Peru

» Michel Kazatchkine
- executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, France

» Paul Volcker
- former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board, US

» Richard Branson
- entrepreneur, advocate for social causes, founder of the Virgin Group, cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom

» Ruth Dreifuss
- former President of Switzerland and Minister of Home Affairs

» Thorvald Stoltenberg
- former Minister of Foreign Affairs and UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Norway


http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Commission

Edward Schumacher-Matos, The Washington Post (2010)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102102957.html?sub=AR


The Editorial Board of the British Medical Journal (2010) - and recommend it be sold in stores like cigarettes and alcohol.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8056292/Cannabis-should-be-sold-in-shops-alongside-beer-and-cigarettes-doctors-journal-says.html

International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, based in Vancouver, Canada (2010)
http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/news/releases/new-report-us-government-data-demonstrates-failure-cannabis-prohibition

Roger Pertwee, UK's Leading Pharmacological Expert on Cannabis, Calls for Legalization
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/14/cannabis-licence-legalisation-pertwee

Joseph McNamara, Former San Jose Chief of Police, Calls For Legalization of Cannabis
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148149/former_police_chief%3A_legalize_pot%2C_now

California Council of Churches IMPACT (21 different denominations and over 1.5 million members within the mainstream and progressive Protestant communities of faith) endorses legalization of cannabis
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/prop-19-california-council-of-churches-says-yes-to-legal-marijuana

The California council of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the state's largest union, endorses legalization in 2010.
http://norml.org/news/2010/09/23/california-state-s-largest-labor-union-endorses-marijuana-depenalization-initiative

Former (Republican) Governor of New Mexico, Gary E. Johnson
http://my.firedoglake.com/garyjohnson/2010/09/03/legalize-marijuana-to-stop-the-drug-cartels/


John McKay, the prosecutor who sent "prince of pot" Marc Emery to jail
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012804422_guest05mckay.html


Please feel free to add others that I have missed.





Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next »